Welcome to Bizarro Amerika!
October 30, 2020, 12:38:35 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: THE ONLY POLITICAL FORUM OUT THERE WHOSE ADMIN AND MODS DON'T LIE.
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Then and Now


Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Then and Now  (Read 1665 times)
Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« on: March 30, 2011, 05:51:18 pm »

Then, according to Rep. Judy Biggert (R):

"Where are the jobs?"



Now, according to Rep. Judy Biggert (R):

"Stop talking about jobs!"




« Last Edit: April 01, 2011, 05:46:57 pm by Howey » Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #1 on: April 01, 2011, 05:55:22 pm »

(I'm going to make this a reocurring thread since the flip flops are so common)

THEN: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R), SC, loving it up with Mohammar Ghadaffi in August 2009:



NOW:

Quote
Today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who accompanied McCain on that August 2009 trip to Libya, flashed a similar bit of amnesia. Like McCain, he invoked Gadhafi's support for terrorism in the 1980s -- including the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, which killed dozens of Americans -- as a reason the U.S. should now "drop a bomb on him."

This was during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, where Secretary of Defense Bob Gates was testifying. Here's the exchange (see the video here, starting around the 98:30 mark):


GRAHAM: Is Gadhafi the legitimate leader of the Libyan people in your eyes, legally? And if he's not, would it be unlawful for a nation including ours to drop a bomb on him, to end this thing?

GATES: Well, President Reagan tried that.

GRAHAM: Well that doesn't mean we shouldn't try again. I'm asking this in all seriousness. I don't believe this man is the legitimate leader of the Libyan people. I believe he's an international terrorist, unlawful enemy combatant, then we're within our bounds as a nation -- and our coalition partners -- to take the fight to him and his cadre of supporters. Is that on the table or not?


Then there's Sen. John McCain, (R), LaLaLand, who accompanied Graham on the trip to Libya:

Quote
Speaking on CBS' "The Early Show" today, McCain twice cited the fact that Moammar Gadhafi has "American blood on his hands" as a reason the U.S. should try to oust the dictator. McCain specifically referred to the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, which was indeed carried out by a Libyan agent.

What McCain is apparently forgetting is that, apart from the past few weeks, the last decade has been a period of rapprochement between the United States and Libya. It started with President Bush announcing in 2003 that Gadhafi had agreed to give up his "weapons of mass destruction" programs. In 2006 Bush removed Libya from the official list of state sponsors of terrorism. In September 2008 Condoleezza Rice traveled to Libya to have talks with Gadhafi. And just a few days before the 2008 presidential election, Bush signed a settlement under which Libya compensated families of victims of Lockerbie and other '80s-era attacks.

« Last Edit: April 01, 2011, 05:58:17 pm by Howey » Report Spam   Logged

Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2011, 12:33:06 pm »

THEN:

Last week: Mike Huckabee on ground troops in Libya.

Quote
It's one thing to destroy air targets. I think the president is exactly right -- we do not want to commit ground troops. We don't have them to commit.

We're in two theatres of war now -- Iraq and Afghanistan. We just don't have any more forces available for any prolonged situation, at all.

NOW

Quote
On his radio program, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee suggested that ground troops would be necessary in Libya.

One thing you'd think would be common knowledge by now is that you can't win a war with air power alone. You can bomb until the rubble turns to gravel, but at some point, foot soldiers have to go in and finish the dirty job. Ironically, foot soldiers may turn out to be the Achilles heel of the Libya operation," Huckabee said. "For the rebels to regain the upper hand, might require the allies to either arm them — which backfired in Afghanistan — or put our own boots on the ground to fight Qadhafi on their behalf. President Obama has already said 'no' to both those options.
Report Spam   Logged

lil mike
Noob
*

Karma: +2/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 907


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2011, 10:47:58 pm »

Howard Dean.  Anti war 2003:

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html

I do not believe the President should have been given a green light to drive our nation into conflict without the case having first been made to Congress and the American people for why this war is necessary, and without a requirement that we at least try first to work through the United Nations…
To this day, the President has not made a case that war against Iraq, now, is necessary to defend American territory, our citizens, our allies, or our essential interests.
Nor has the Administration prepared sufficiently for the possible retaliatory attacks on our home front that even the President’s CIA Director has stated are likely to occur. It has always been important, before going to war, for our troops to be well-trained, well-equipped, and well-protected. In this new era, it is as important that our people on the home front also be well-protected.
The Administration has not explained how a lasting peace, and lasting security, will be achieved in Iraq once Saddam Hussein is toppled.


Howard Dean.  War Monger 2011:

http://eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=hdaGkUuzkU


JOE SCARBOROUGH: Howard Dean, what's your response to the president's actions in Libya?

HOWARD DEAN: I think he's done the right thing. It's easy to criticize in hindsight.



DEAN: When somebody comes in and has a revolution you don't get to say, as the United States of America, when they have their elections.

JOE KLEIN: All the more reason for us to stay out of them.

DEAN: I don't think you stay out of these things. You can't if you're the most powerful country in the world . . . You have to take chances.

KLEIN: That's not what you were saying in 2003!

DEAN: That's because we were lied to about what we were doing . . . we were lied to about the WMD.

KLEIN:  We had the same situation as we do now, which is insufficent information.
 

Report Spam   Logged
Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2011, 09:54:44 am »

I do not believe the President should have been given a green light to drive our nation into conflict without the case having first been made to Congress and the American people for why this war is necessary, and without a requirement that we at least try first to work through the United Nations…

Aside from the fact that I don't understand why the neocons are suddenly so against this action in Libya when they've been so trigger-happy the past dozen or so years...

Didn't the President work through the UN, who with a consensus took the action? Didn't he meet with members of Congress the day before the action and briefed them on what we were going to do?


Sure, Mike. Obama isn't Bush. Like Dean said, Bush invaded Iraq based upon a lie. Didn't Bush invade Iraq after ignoring the UN? Didn't Bush invade Iraq single-handed like the sheriff of the world?

Didn't Bush invade Iraq in violation of the UN Charter and our very own laws?

How many thousands and thousands of lifes in Libya have been saved?
Report Spam   Logged

lil mike
Noob
*

Karma: +2/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 907


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2011, 11:22:15 am »

Aside from the fact that I don't understand why the neocons are suddenly so against this action in Libya when they've been so trigger-happy the past dozen or so years...

Didn't the President work through the UN, who with a consensus took the action? Didn't he meet with members of Congress the day before the action and briefed them on what we were going to do?


Sure, Mike. Obama isn't Bush. Like Dean said, Bush invaded Iraq based upon a lie. Didn't Bush invade Iraq after ignoring the UN? Didn't Bush invade Iraq single-handed like the sheriff of the world?

Didn't Bush invade Iraq in violation of the UN Charter and our very own laws?

How many thousands and thousands of lifes in Libya have been saved?


I'm trying to think which one of those lines you wrote you might be correct on...

As far as NeoCons go, Obama is now one of them. 

The debate over going in to Iraq lasted a year.  It was a debate with the public, in the media, and with both houses of Congress.  There UN resolutions, Use of Force approved by the Congress, a national interest at stake (whether you think it's a "lie" or not) and overwhelming public support.  You may have disagreed with going in (as did I) but the administration dotted it's i's and minded it's p's and q's.

As far as your humanitarian question, how many lives have been saved... that's the weird one for me.  I heard Ghaddafi's threat as one against the rebels, not just a promise of mindless innocent slaughter (although Ghaddafi is capable of mindless innocent slaughter).  I think there is a real argumnent to be made that there might be some circumstances in which humanitarian intervention might be justified.  But I just didn't see it in this case.  Ghaddafi was threatening the rebels and we intervened in a civil war.  As long as your happy with fighting this war to the finish and staying there to fix what we broke...
Report Spam   Logged
Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2011, 11:50:38 am »


As far as your humanitarian question, how many lives have been saved... that's the weird one for me.  I heard Ghaddafi's threat as one against the rebels, not just a promise of mindless innocent slaughter

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360595/Gaddafi-threatens-burn-Libya-protesters-cease.html

Quote
Gaddafi's last stand: Embattled leader threatens to 'burn all of Libya' if protesters do not cease in their bid to overthrow him
 
Former Libyan diplomat warns thousands will die in the next 24 hours Prospect of setting up a no-fly zone to prevent Gaddafi bombing protesters
Thousands defy shoot-on-sight warning at Green Square protest
U.S. imposes sanctions on Libya and cuts diplomatic ties
Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi has threatened to 'burn all of Libya' if the citizens do not cease protests against him. In a surprise televised appearance, Gaddafi warned he was ready to unleash further bloodshed and urged his followers: 'Prepare to defend Libya.'
He told loyalists in Tripoli's Green Square that 'we will defeat any outside attempt to overturn our country', and bizarrely added: 'Libyan people love me.'
He was attempting to stage a dramatic last attempt to cling on to power as tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets of Libya.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8399788/Libya-innocents-still-being-attacked-says-US-forces-chief.html

Quote
Adml Samuel Locklear, who has joint responsibility for enforcing the no-fly zone, said that, according to US intelligence, Gaddafi had launched attacks on the rebel-held western city of Misurata, where four children were reportedly killed by shelling yesterday.

“It’s my judgment that, despite our success, Gaddafi and his forces are not yet complying with the UN resolution due to the continued aggressive actions his forces have taken against the civilian population of Libya,” he said.

His comments followed reports that Misurata was under siege by Gaddafi’s forces. Tanks and snipers have been deployed to the city centre, killing more than 40 people and injuring 300.

Doctors described desperate scenes as hospitals struggled to cope with the number of injured. Surgeons were forced to operate on bullet and shrapnel wounds in hospital corridors because of a lack of space

I'm trying to think which one of those lines you wrote you might be correct on...

As far as NeoCons go, Obama is now one of them. 

The debate over going in to Iraq lasted a year.  It was a debate with the public, in the media, and with both houses of Congress.  There UN resolutions, Use of Force approved by the Congress, a national interest at stake (whether you think it's a "lie" or not) and overwhelming public support. 

"Overwhelming public support"? Based on a lie...

"UN"?

http://www.democracynow.org/2002/10/11/congress_gives_bush_unilateral_power_to

Congress Gives Bush Unilateral Power to Invade Iraq Without UN Approval Or Congress Notice: House Members Dennis Kucinich & Barbara Lee Try to Delay the VoteShare As the Iraqis hunker down for an invasion, the U.S. Congress has voted to give President Bush the power to unilaterally attack Iraq. Just before the House took its roll call vote a protester cried out. Minutes later Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio tried to have the vote delayed by putting forward an amendment to send the resolution back to committee. Several Congress members including California’s Barbara Lee supported him. Kucinich’s amendment was defeated. The House then voted 296-133 to give President Bush the power to unilaterally invade Iraq.

http://www.opednews.com/Poll/Did-Bush-Comply-With-The--by-Gene-Cappa-080809-311.html

Did Bush Comply With "Authorization to Use Military Force"?

     

Quote
As hard as he tried, twice or more and failed, Bush could NOT get the United Nations Security Council to approve his invasion of Iraq.

The United Nations Charter "prohibits the use of military force against any member nation without the approval of the Security Council", but lacking the required authorization, Bush decided to attack Iraq asserting that Congress gave him the authorization to do so by approving House Joint Resolution 114, the "Authorization to Use Military Force".

However, a closer look at the Resolution reveals that Bush did NOT COMPLY with the "most critical WHEREAS clauses" CLICK HERE http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/noiraqauthority.html

"Basically Bush tricked Congress into signing HJR114 by fraudulent means which negated his authority to invade Iraq.

Violation of Requirement for Determination
Bush also violated several terms of the resolution. The first violation relates to Section 3(b), which states:

"In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall ... make available ... his determination that—

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;"

If Bush had told the truth about Iraq then he would have said Iraq did not pose a threat to America. In that case "diplomatic or other peaceful means" would have given us adequate protection.
Report Spam   Logged

lil mike
Noob
*

Karma: +2/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 907


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2011, 07:45:08 pm »


"Overwhelming public support"? Based on a lie...

"UN"?

http://www.democracynow.org/2002/10/11/congress_gives_bush_unilateral_power_to

Congress Gives Bush Unilateral Power to Invade Iraq Without UN Approval Or Congress Notice: House Members Dennis Kucinich & Barbara Lee Try to Delay the VoteShare As the Iraqis hunker down for an invasion, the U.S. Congress has voted to give President Bush the power to unilaterally attack Iraq. Just before the House took its roll call vote a protester cried out. Minutes later Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio tried to have the vote delayed by putting forward an amendment to send the resolution back to committee. Several Congress members including California’s Barbara Lee supported him. Kucinich’s amendment was defeated. The House then voted 296-133 to give President Bush the power to unilaterally invade Iraq.

http://www.opednews.com/Poll/Did-Bush-Comply-With-The--by-Gene-Cappa-080809-311.html

Did Bush Comply With "Authorization to Use Military Force"?

     


I remember somewhere on the muche arguing with Kazzy about argument that Iraq war was an illegal war.

If I remember my position was that it was probably the most "legal" war we had ever been in.  There were several, several UN resolutions against Iraq if they didn't comply with the terms of the cease fire (which authorized force if the terms were not met) at the end of the Gulf War.

Again, Congress authorized a use of force against Iraq.  It authorized nothing against Libya.

That's why Howard Dean is a hypocrite.  Read his 2003 quote again.

Don't get me wrong though, I love him for it!  Damn that Kucinich and his principles!  He would have been a better catch.
Report Spam   Logged
Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2011, 08:06:13 pm »

Oh...I don't care to get involved with your arguments with the Kazz. That's like talking to a brick wall.

I don't know if we entered the Iraq war illegally; we did, however, enter it in violation of the UN Charter.

Quote
The United Nations Charter "prohibits the use of military force against any member nation without the approval of the Security Council", but lacking the required authorization, Bush decided to attack Iraq asserting that Congress gave him the authorization to do so by approving House Joint Resolution 114, the "Authorization to Use Military Force".
Report Spam   Logged

lil mike
Noob
*

Karma: +2/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 907


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #9 on: April 04, 2011, 05:18:30 pm »

Oh...I don't care to get involved with your arguments with the Kazz. That's like talking to a brick wall.

I don't know if we entered the Iraq war illegally; we did, however, enter it in violation of the UN Charter.


Ha!

Yeah I never understood what she was trying to do...

I don't think any major nation recognizes that restriction.  Virtually all of our wars are in violation of the UN charter on that account because we don't recognize that limitation on our sovereignty.  However our orignial cease fire agreement recognized resumption of hostilities if Iraq didn't comply with the argreement, which they didn't of course.  Although we did nothing for years...

The lesson from the Gulf to Iraq wars is, as has been made again recently, is that if you strike at the king, you have to kill him.  So we will have to stay long enough to kill Ghaddafi.

And then what?
Report Spam   Logged
Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #10 on: April 04, 2011, 06:09:17 pm »

Ha!

Yeah I never understood what she was trying to do...

Who said I was talking about Kazzy?  Grin

Ha!

Yeah I never understood what she was trying to do...

I don't think any major nation recognizes that restriction.  Virtually all of our wars are in violation of the UN charter on that account because we don't recognize that limitation on our sovereignty.  However our orignial cease fire agreement recognized resumption of hostilities if Iraq didn't comply with the argreement, which they didn't of course.  Although we did nothing for years...

The lesson from the Gulf to Iraq wars is, as has been made again recently, is that if you strike at the king, you have to kill him.  So we will have to stay long enough to kill Ghaddafi.

And then what?

I think Ghaddafi will end up (sooner than later) in asylum somewhere welcoming to him.






Probably Texas.
Report Spam   Logged

lil mike
Noob
*

Karma: +2/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 907


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #11 on: April 04, 2011, 08:35:14 pm »

Who said I was talking about Kazzy?  Grin


Why you son of a...



I think Ghaddafi will end up (sooner than later) in asylum somewhere welcoming to him.






Probably Texas.

He's gotta be dead or captured.  Otherwise, the war wil be ongoing.

So in the meantime, whats the next pre-emptive neo con war?
Report Spam   Logged
44nutman
Founding Member
Noob
******

Karma: +18/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 713



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #12 on: April 05, 2011, 10:20:32 am »

The war,controlling the skies action in Libya will tell you all you need to know about 95% of elected officials and look no further than the stress fucker, Newt. If you have a Democratic president, then if you are a Republican you condemn the action. If you have a Republican president then the DEMS condemn the action. Newt was for the Libya fiasco, but now that Obama is for wasting our tax dollars, then Stress Fucker Newt is now against it.

The flip-flops are done because the opposing party supports the other parties original position. Both sides are banking on the brainwashed sheeple sitting in their pens to forget their previous position.
Men/women with principals in DC are going the way of the Dodo bird.
Report Spam   Logged
Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2011, 11:34:30 am »

Nutty, there are, believe it or not, some pols out there who still have integrity.

I'm not ready to throw in the towel, call them all crooks, and bring in a whole new bunch. It didn't work last November, did it?
Report Spam   Logged

44nutman
Founding Member
Noob
******

Karma: +18/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 713



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2011, 12:06:41 pm »

Nutty, there are, believe it or not, some pols out there who still have integrity.

I'm not ready to throw in the towel, call them all crooks, and bring in a whole new bunch. It didn't work last November, did it?
I said 95% of them have situational integrity, just follow the money. I am going to keep voting out incumbents until the finally get the message they represent the people. The only weapon I have is my vote and emails to my congressman. I fired one off to Webster last nite. I am up to 10 emails to him and not even a response from him that he even received them. I guess he is too busy trying to define what is considered rape.
Report Spam   Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy